There is nothing more important than voting for Bernie Sanders. This may be our last chance

[vegas1369]

Anyone who basically villainizes people who have worked hard and have been fortunate enough to create wealth for themselves is as much of an asshole to me as these far right idiots who think that the bible and their ideology are the blueprint on how to run government.

I get villainizing big banks and their CEO's, attacking the Industrial Military Complex and corporations running elections, but to basically lump all "billionaires" into that same group is undermining the American dream. To base your campaign and beliefs on giving hope to a bunch of deadbeats and soon to be college kids, which IMO is pretty much at the heart of the Sanders campaign is no different than a story that's been told and used since the midievel times... Modern day Robin Hood is all he is to me.

All of his ideas when it comes to money are completely unrealistic.

On the flip side... Trump is sort of a genius in that he has completely manipulated the Republican party. He is, without question, a Democrat at heart... A Democrat that knew he had absolutely no shot at winning the nomination in that party... So what did he do? He decided there would be nothing easier than pulling the wool over a bunch of mouth breathing, right wing bigoted whack jobs and tugging at the strings of the issues that they think are closest to their hearts, all the while tearing down one by one the candidates that actually do support the ridiculous antiquated beliefs and ideology of the now defunct party.

Sorry to say Druff, as far as Presidential elections go, the Republican party is dead. Libertarian party will most likely rise within the next 4 election cycles IMO, and Republicans will be in the minority.

Nice to see you coming around. You're going to be a rich man soon and Bernie wants to take that shit because you didn't build that shit. Oh wait, that's Obama. Nevermind.

Obv both. Infuriating to hear Dem's say shit like that.

Both sides suck. I've said it many times, it's choosing the lesser of two evils. In years past I didn't vote partially because of that reason, but now that I have more of a vested interest in the outcome I'm pretty much forced to go to the polls.

[MumblesBadly]

Don't conflate the lending related to the CRA with the abandoning of mortgage lending standards in the 2000s that caused the mortgage market bubble. The Federal Reserve studied how much impact the CRA had on the mortgage market bubble and concluded that it had no appreciable effect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.

That's like saying that it didn't happen. We know that the subprime market and subsequent bundling is what cratered the market. The logistics of 1000 people buying $1M houses that they can't afford does not offset the 1M people that bought $100,000 houses they couldn't afford. It all goes on the same ledger.

Oh, it happened! Just not the way you have been mislead to believe. Reread the bolded part of the summary above to see why.

Meaning, the story blaming the CRA is a lie that is not consistent with the facts. You can follow the link to the research paper published by the Fed to learn more about the details.

[MumblesBadly]

Don't conflate the lending related to the CRA with the abandoning of mortgage lending standards in the 2000s that caused the mortgage market bubble. The Federal Reserve studied how much impact the CRA had on the mortgage market bubble and concluded that it had no appreciable effect.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

That's like saying that it didn't happen. We know that the subprime market and subsequent bundling is what cratered the market. The logistics of 1000 people buying $1M houses that they can't afford does not offset the 1M people that bought $100,000 houses they couldn't afford. It all goes on the same ledger.

Right exactly. So you had both poor people and "rich" people buying houses they couldn't afford both of which caused the problem. I go back to my point about "Stated Income." People who didnt have a job, but had good credit, were saying they made 200k a year and the banks would underwrite the loan for a 600k+ house. So who even knows if the "higher income borrowers" were really higher income or were just lying. So much of it was made up. It was so ridiculously easy to get a loan in those days.

The point is no one had to have any skin in the game whether they were rich or poor and that is ultimately what caused the problem. No other country had such low standards to buy a home.

I agree that there was a lot of fraud committed by people applying for many of those mortgages, but those were mostly NOT mortgages related to CRA lending. If you don't believe the conclusion of the summary I quoted saying how only 6% of those mortgages were CRA loans, follow the link above to the research paper by the Fed for the details.

[vegas1369]

Dear FPS Russia, my apologies, you are correct. While I believe Sanders (the self proclaimed Socialist) has an even harder stance on how all wealthy people weren't successful on their own and that it took the teamwork of our forefathers and the American society to pave the way for success, Sanders never actually said the "somebody else built it" comment. It was in fact only Obama.

However, while that comment was definitely taken out of context as Obama was basically saying that the path to success wouldn't be there if it wasn't for other hard working Americans, comments like that and Sanders entire campaign devalue IMO what it actually takes to be successful. If what Obama was saying was totally accurate, then everyone would be equally successful, which obv isn't the case. I know this is what Sanders wants, and feels everyone is equal and should be treated as such. I personally vehemently disagree with that line of thinking. Most people don't realize the drive, effort, risk, management skills and entrepreneurial spirit it takes to separate yourself from the pack. So, a lot of the time very successful people did in fact do it by themselves and deserve the success and riches that they were fortunate enough to achieve.

[Wiganer]

Dear FPS Russia, my apologies, you are correct. While I believe Sanders (the self proclaimed Socialist) has an even harder stance on how all wealthy people weren't successful on their own and that it took the teamwork of our forefathers and the American society to pave the way for success, Sanders never actually said the "somebody else built it" comment. It was in fact only Obama.

However, while that comment was definitely taken out of context as Obama was basically saying that the path to success wouldn't be there if it wasn't for other hard working Americans, comments like that and Sanders entire campaign devalue IMO what it actually takes to be successful. If what Obama was saying was totally accurate, then everyone would be equally successful, which obv isn't the case. I know this is what Sanders wants, and feels everyone is equal and should be treated as such. I personally vehemently disagree with that line of thinking. Most people don't realize the drive, effort, risk, management skills and entrepreneurial spirit it takes to separate yourself from the pack. So, a lot of the time very successful people did in fact do it by themselves and deserve the success and riches that they were fortunate enough to achieve.

Not everyone is equally successful at constructing readable paragraphs.

[4Dragons]

For pure entertainment value, I'm rooting for a Bernie vs. Trump final

I'm also all for this. Communist vs Fascist.

[Greg Raymers Shorts]

The country doesn't stand a chance without Trump in there. Trump/Neil deGrasse Tyson and it's an autowin.

[FPS_Russia]

/thread

[Pooh]

Dear FPS Russia, my apologies, you are correct. While I believe Sanders (the self proclaimed Socialist) has an even harder stance on how all wealthy people weren't successful on their own and that it took the teamwork of our forefathers and the American society to pave the way for success, Sanders never actually said the "somebody else built it" comment. It was in fact only Obama.

However, while that comment was definitely taken out of context as Obama was basically saying that the path to success wouldn't be there if it wasn't for other hard working Americans, comments like that and Sanders entire campaign devalue IMO what it actually takes to be successful. If what Obama was saying was totally accurate, then everyone would be equally successful, which obv isn't the case. I know this is what Sanders wants, and feels everyone is equal and should be treated as such. I personally vehemently disagree with that line of thinking. Most people don't realize the drive, effort, risk, management skills and entrepreneurial spirit it takes to separate yourself from the pack. So, a lot of the time very successful people did in fact do it by themselves and deserve the success and riches that they were fortunate enough to achieve.

Think about how hard you've worked the past couple years to build this business you have going. Almost every successful business has started the way you're doing it. Not me, I just bought a job for Christ sakes, I'm talking real businesses with employees and shit. Now once you become successful they want to take what you've worked so hard for. They'll think your employees deserve a piece of the pie when they haven't done shit to earn it. It's the new entitlement of America and it sucks a fat black cock.

[Dan Druff]

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment was NOT taken out of context. That was a spin provided by the liberal media.

In reality, he was saying that government programs were mostly responsible for your business' success, so therefore the government has a right to heavily tax your business' income. He claimed that the roads people drive on to get to your business, as well as the teachers who taught you in school to get you where you are today, were paid for by the government, so therefore you owe the government back. Bullshit.

But yeah... Sanders takes an even more extreme view of that, and he advocates pretty much a modern form of communism

I actually respect Sanders for his anti-corruption and anti-corporate-controlled-government stances, but it all gets mucked up with his crazy far left thinking.

[FPS_Russia]

Obama sold us out on the one issue that truly mattered.

I've looked at everyone concerns very closely and here's my conclusion.
There's not one person who posted in this thread who shouldn't vote for Sanders period.
This isn't about taking Druff, Pooh and Cmoney's nest egg and giving it to Jewdonk. Whether you want to believe it or not, all of you will have your best years under Bernie.

Cliffs: Want a second poker boom? Vote for Bernie!

[FPS_Russia]

It's about this...

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/693612928583483392

Stunning! Have a great day gentlemen.

[MumblesBadly]

Obama sold us out on the one issue that truly mattered.

I've looked at everyone concerns very closely and here's my conclusion.
There's not one person who posted in this thread who shouldn't vote for Sanders period.
This isn't about taking Druff, Pooh and Cmoney's nest egg and giving it to Jewdonk. Whether you want to believe it or not, all of you will have your best years under Bernie.

Cliffs: Want a second poker boom? Vote for Bernie!

Agreed about Obama re the fraud in the banking sector not being prosecuted by Team Obama. And that stupid HAMP program was so badly designed and monitored in the first few years that some big banks used it to fuck over people who were gullible enough to trust them to ethically process their relief requests.

[MumblesBadly]

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment was NOT taken out of context. That was a spin provided by the liberal media.

In reality, he was saying that government programs were mostly responsible for your business' success, so therefore the government has a right to heavily tax your business' income. He claimed that the roads people drive on to get to your business, as well as the teachers who taught you in school to get you where you are today, were paid for by the government, so therefore you owe the government back. Bullshit.

But yeah... Sanders takes an even more extreme view of that, and he advocates pretty much a modern form of communism

I actually respect Sanders for his anti-corruption and anti-corporate-controlled-government stances, but it all gets mucked up with his crazy far left thinking.

Druff, please list specific policies that Sanders calls for that you believe are "crazy far left thinking"?

[4Dragons]

Obama sold us out on the one issue that truly mattered.

I've looked at everyone concerns very closely and here's my conclusion.
There's not one person who posted in this thread who shouldn't vote for Sanders period.
This isn't about taking Druff, Pooh and Cmoney's nest egg and giving it to Jewdonk. Whether you want to believe it or not, all of you will have your best years under Bernie.

Cliffs: Want a second poker boom? Vote for Bernie!

[GrenadaRoger]

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment was NOT taken out of context. That was a spin provided by the liberal media.

In reality, he was saying that government programs were mostly responsible for your business' success, so therefore the government has a right to heavily tax your business' income. He claimed that the roads people drive on to get to your business, as well as the teachers who taught you in school to get you where you are today, were paid for by the government, so therefore you owe the government back. Bullshit.

Bullshit Druff? How rich/successful would you be in Syria right now? The rich need the government to protect their wealth so tax should be based on income/wealth...pay for the service one receives, isn't that your Libertarian credo?

[Dan Druff]

Obama's "you didn't build that" comment was NOT taken out of context. That was a spin provided by the liberal media.

In reality, he was saying that government programs were mostly responsible for your business' success, so therefore the government has a right to heavily tax your business' income. He claimed that the roads people drive on to get to your business, as well as the teachers who taught you in school to get you where you are today, were paid for by the government, so therefore you owe the government back. Bullshit.

Bullshit Druff? How rich/successful would you be in Syria right now? The rich need the government to protect their wealth so tax should be based on income/wealth...pay for the service one receives, isn't that your Libertarian credo?

Tax should be based on income/wealth. That is, if you make more, you pay more. Not a higher percentage, but more.

That's what a flat tax would accomplish.

Liberals are very against a flat tax.

They say that a flat tax would hurt the poor, but a flat tax with zero tax for the first 40k of income (or whatever) would work, while sparing the poor.

Many people who support a progressive tax don't even understand what it is. They will say, "What?! Someone who makes $10 million should pay the same taxes as me? Are you crazy?"

No, they should pay the same RATE as you. The amount they will pay will be much, much more.

This is resisted by the left because it appears to be a tax cut on the rich. At the same time, the left constantly bitches about loopholes allowing corporations and super rich individuals to legally dodge tax, and I AGREE those should be closed, yet they don't want to give anything on the other side and relax the steep taxes against those rich people honestly paying their share.

[lewfather]

Bullshit Druff? How rich/successful would you be in Syria right now? The rich need the government to protect their wealth so tax should be based on income/wealth...pay for the service one receives, isn't that your Libertarian credo?

Tax should be based on income/wealth. That is, if you make more, you pay more. Not a higher percentage, but more.

That's what a flat tax would accomplish.

Liberals are very against a flat tax.

They say that a flat tax would hurt the poor, but a flat tax with zero tax for the first 40k of income (or whatever) would work, while sparing the poor.

Many people who support a progressive tax don't even understand what it is. They will say, "What?! Someone who makes $10 million should pay the same taxes as me? Are you crazy?"

No, they should pay the same RATE as you. The amount they will pay will be much, much more.

This is resisted by the left because it appears to be a tax cut on the rich. At the same time, the left constantly bitches about loopholes allowing corporations and super rich individuals to legally dodge tax, and I AGREE those should be closed, yet they don't want to give anything on the other side and relax the steep taxes against those rich people honestly paying their share.

91%

[Salty_Aus]

I really don't think it will make any difference if Bernie is elected, think his hands will be tied by congress and he will be a very ineffective president.

Your system doesn't really suit a reformist type leader.

Regardless, doubt he'll get elected, no charisma and too easy to scaremonger with the "crazy socialist" stuff.

You don't need Sanders, you need a new political system!

[anonamoose]

It seems like there's a lot of misconception going on in this thread, and it's rather hilarious.

What people are having a hard time seeing here is at the end of the day it doesn't matter if Bernie wins or not at this point. The point is within in the next 10 years, whether you like it or not it's going to be Socialist v. Libertarian. The new generations are done and sick of Democrats and Republicans fucking shit up. We watched as you guys elected Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and another Bush. We watched the videos of how great things truly were here at one point and are masters of a modern age that most of the older generation struggles to comprehend.

We have systems in other countries that work for politics, education, health, and military that we are ignoring because your generations are too proud to say "maybe we were wrong."

This group of people is growing by the day exponentially. It started with OWS and has grown since.

I remember watching a video that Cruz was telling some illegal immigrant they needed to go home because in every other modern country it would be the same. You also see cheap education and affordable health care in those countries. There are systems that work.

Every day more and more people wake up to their meager salary and ask themselves how they're going to pay for a medication they need, or how they're going to put their kids through college, etc. They turn on facebook and see their good friend from Germany working a similar job living a much better life.

They go to pay their student loans and on a second tab they have a news article discussing how people in some countries pay 400 euro a year for school and in other countries get PAID to go to school.

More and more of this generation is seeing this, and it's growing by the day. It's time to face reality, the world and this country WILL go socialist v libertarian. Your generation, banks, and lobbyists are trying to stop it, but they're only holding off the inevitable.

Healthcare and education should be a right in a country that claims it's a first world country. It shouldn't be thrust upon as a prerequisite and then be forced to pay the bill. "The world needs ditch diggers," well that's what technology is for now and it's already beginning to be seen that most manual labor jobs and lower level white collar jobs can be replaced with that technology. You can't keep depending on "ditch diggers" because eventually they're just going to be poor people on the corner begging for change. Will the world need them then?

We live in a country where 1 guy can buy a critical drug and increase it's price thousands of a percent, and that's ok in the government's eyes. It becomes up to the people to go vigilante and ruin the guy. That's not a first world country, that's just sad. We might as well be a third world country if that's what has to happen.